Reply from Candidate Lorena Gonzales

1. Do
you agree with the mayor’s proposal to allow “small lot dwellings,
cottages or courtyard housing, rowhouses, duplexes, triplexes and
stacked flats” in single-family zones?

The
growth that is happening in our city is undeniable but I would seek to
focus policy solutions to the affordability crises where growth
is currently being experienced, primarily in urban villages and centers.
The urban village and center model is a solution that allows us to
increase density and affordability without losing the neighborhood feel
that so many of us cherish. However, I do agree with the HALA
recommendation that would encourage the construction of backyard
cottages and mother-in-law units within singly-family zones. These are
units that are already being built within single-family zones and
provide affordability options both for distressed homeowners and
renters.

2. Do you agree with the mayor’s proposal to expand the boundaries of some urban villages, such as in Ballard?

Yes.
I think expanding the boundaries of urban villages and centers will be
an essential tool to handling the current and future growth of our
city’s population. Moving forward with this plan would affect only 6% of
areas currently zoned as single-family, so I think this recommendation
is a reasonable place to start and strikes an appropriate balance
between the need to accommodate density and neighborhood concerns.

3.
Do you agree with the mayor’s proposal to reduce parking requirements
in transit-served areas and in multi-family zones outside urban centers
and urban villages, to ensure that parking requirements are not
re-introduced in urban villages and urban centers, and eliminate parking
requirements for “small-scale” housing types in single-family
neighborhoods?

The amount of parking and the requirements around urban villages, centers and frequent transit service areas will
continue to be a challenge given our current density. That problem
will be exacerbated if we do not complement parking reform with
integrated transit options, including bus service, pedestrian ways and
bike lanes. I recognize that transportation infrastructure has not kept
pace with the projected growth in certain neighborhoods (e.g., Ballard)
but I do see the benefit in relaxing some parking requirements,
especially in transit rich zones and urban villages and centers. That
said, I am not in support of a blanket approach to lifting parking
requirements within single-family zones. But I am supportive of lifting
parking requirements applicable to backyard cottages and mother-in-law
units that are creating a barrier to production of that type of
affordable housing within single-family zones.

4. Do
you agree with the mayor’s proposal to increase allowable height and
density in multi-family, neighborhood-commercial and commercial zones?
Do you believe that such an increase is necessary to create affordable
housing?

Yes. Again, we must utilize multiple tools to address the growing affordability crisis
in the city. We are undeniably growing and I don’t want to find
ourselves in a situation where we are pricing longtime residents out of
the city they call home. This is particularly true when it comes to
seniors and other low to moderate income families. I believe that
relaxing some height requirements will be an essential part of creating
more affordable housing under a mandatory inclusionary zoning program,
which will trade additional height for on-site construction of
affordable housing.

5. Do
you believe that the mayor’s proposal does enough to require developers
to help provide affordable housing and mitigate the impact of
development? Would you support other measures, such as a tougher
inclusionary-housing requirement, or broader linkage and impact fees?

It
is anticipated that the recommendations listed above will produce
20,000 units of affordable housing in the next 10 years. Based on those
projections, I am supportive of these strategies to address the
current affordability crises. The commercial linkage fee represent a
balanced policy that will force commercial developers to help with
contributing towards affordable housing while avoiding the trickle-down
effect of imposing a linkage fee on residential construction the cost of
which would be passed onto residents. I am, and have always been,
supportive of mandatory inclusionary zoning as a mechanism to compel
developers to construct affordable housing throughout the city. There
are details to be worked out to ensure that mandatory inclusionary
zoning is truly mandatory and that the projection of 5-7% will address
the current housing need gap that exists in our city. Lastly, if elected, I will focus on exploring mandatory inclusionary zoning, commercial linkage fee, multi-family tax exemption, increased tenant protections/support and promotion of homeownership. Combined, I believe that these policy proposals will create much needed affordable housing.